VIETNAM SATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOL UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES TEESE OH HES OHO OME tori NGUYEN TIT TAM THE IMPACT OF COLLABORATIVE WRITING ON 11™ STUDENTS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE (TAC DONG CUA VIET TIOP TAC TOT KY NANG VIET CUA HQC SINH LOP 11) M.A MINOR PROGRAMME TIIESIS FIELD : ENGLISII TEACIING METIIODOLOGY CODE : 60.111 Hanoi, 2014 VIETNAM SATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOL UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES TEESE OH HES OHO OME tori NGUYEN TIT TAM THE IMPACT OF COLLABORATIVE WRITING ON 11™ STUDENTS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE (TAC DONG CUA VIET TIOP TAC TOT KY NANG VIET CUA HQC SINH LOP 11) M.A MINOR PROGRAMME TIIESIS FIELD : ENGLISII TEACIING METIIODOLOGY CODE : 60. HOANG THI HANH Hanoi, 2014 DECLARATION L Nguyen Thi Tam, hereby cortify that my M.A thesis cntitled “The impact of collaborative writing on LI” students’ writing performance” is the result of my own research in the fulfillment of the requirement for Degree of Master of Arts at the Faculty of Post Graduate Studies University of Languages and International Studies, Tlanoi. I commit that this thesis has not been submitted anywhere for any degree. Hanoi, 2014 Nguyễn Thị Tôm TABLE OF CONTENT DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
TABLE OF CONTENT. TAST OF ABBREVIATIO! LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES. Aims of the study. The research questions 4.
Significance of the study. TH TH HH HH rên weed 5. Scope of the study. Method of the sludy 3 2.
Structure of the TepOTH. dàn Họ HH nhe re eeccoce3 PART B: DEVELOPMENT.ôôÔỐỒô- CHAPTER ONE: IITERATURE REVITEẲẬW. What is collaborative writing? 5 1. Why collaborative writing?.
Problematic issues of collaborative writing. cà se ciceeecesB 1. How Lo implement. CW in writing.
TH KH KH HH re grdeeererserrsereeeerere.lT CHAPTER WO: MEPHODOLOGY. cà nhe he He ưước 12 TABLE OF CONTENT DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. TABLE OF CONTENT. TAST OF ABBREVIATIO! LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES.
Aims of the study. The research questions 4. Significance of the study. TH TH HH HH rên weed 5.
Scope of the study. Method of the sludy 3 2. Structure of the TepOTH. dàn Họ HH nhe re eeccoce3 PART B: DEVELOPMENT.ôôÔỐỒô- CHAPTER ONE: IITERATURE REVITEẲẬW.
What is collaborative writing? 5 1. Why collaborative writing?. Problematic issues of collaborative writing. cà se ciceeecesB 1.
How Lo implement. CW in writing. TH KH KH HH re grdeeererserrsereeeerere.lT CHAPTER WO: MEPHODOLOGY. cà nhe he He ưước 12 2.1, Rationale of the using action research.
Research setting, - 12 BBD, OVEIVICW. cọ dc He see ¬ ceeee ee LZ 2. Writing tasks in the textbook Tieng Anh 1].3 Selection of participants 15 3. The Research Design.4, The teaching cycle used in this study.
Tramimg thơ lcarrters. Methods of data collection 7 2. Interviews with students and a teacher. Collection of students’ writings.
Posl-Iroatiert trierview wIh the observmg Ieacher 19 2. Summary - - - 20 CHAPTER THREE:FINDINGS AND DICUSSION. The results of phasc 1. Results of phase IL 23 3.Analysis of students' wiitings.
cà cề lề co C227 3. Comparison of Writing Fluency. Comparison of Writing Aceurady. Comparison of writing complexity.
Interview with the observing teacher.33 vii ABSTRACT This study was carried oul, fo investigate the impacts of and students’ allitudes toward collaborative writing (CW) in second language {L2). The study was conducted in two cycles Callowmg the procedures of the action research, Tu the Grst. cycle, an interview with aight students and a teacher of English was administered to gain information about the difficulties the students had encountered with in completing the writing tasks in the textbook. Then in the second phase, the collaboralive writing approach was experimented to teach writing to forty students in an intact class.
During, the writing lesson, a teacher was invited to observe and give comment about appropriateness of CW. After each lesson students’ joumals were collected to examine their reflections on collaborative writing. At the end of the experiment, another interview with the observing teacher was carried out to find out the usefulness and appropriateness of collaborative wriling in teaching wriling skill. Students’ writings were also analysed to measure the impact of the treatment upon students’ writing The results showed that students did make progress in their writing.
The observing teacher and most students were positive about the experience, although some reservations were expressed about collaborative writing, which gives rationale for the design of the next cycle of the ation rescarch iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ‘Lable 2.1: Writing tasks in the textbook ‘l'ieng Anh 11 Figure 3.1: Comparison of Writing Fluency (No of words, No of T-mits, No of Clauses) Figure 3.2; Comparison of Writing Fluency (words per T-unit, words per clause) Figure 3.3: Comparison of Writing Accuracy Figure 3.4; Comparison of writing complexity ABSTRACT This study was carried oul, fo investigate the impacts of and students’ allitudes toward collaborative writing (CW) in second language {L2). The study was conducted in two cycles Callowmg the procedures of the action research, Tu the Grst. cycle, an interview with aight students and a teacher of English was administered to gain information about the difficulties the students had encountered with in completing the writing tasks in the textbook. Then in the second phase, the collaboralive writing approach was experimented to teach writing to forty students in an intact class.
During, the writing lesson, a teacher was invited to observe and give comment about appropriateness of CW. After each lesson students’ joumals were collected to examine their reflections on collaborative writing. At the end of the experiment, another interview with the observing teacher was carried out to find out the usefulness and appropriateness of collaborative wriling in teaching wriling skill. Students’ writings were also analysed to measure the impact of the treatment upon students’ writing The results showed that students did make progress in their writing.
The observing teacher and most students were positive about the experience, although some reservations were expressed about collaborative writing, which gives rationale for the design of the next cycle of the ation rescarch iii PARTC:CONCLUSION. Summary of major findings. Findings from the prior infervioW.2, Fimdings #om the students` jaumals. Findings from the results of the writing 36 1.4, Findingsfrom the post- treatment interview with the observing teacher 37 2 Tmpleations.
Limitations of this action researeh. cọ non assess ee ST 4. Recommendations for further studies 38 5. TABLE OF CONTENT DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
TABLE OF CONTENT. TAST OF ABBREVIATIO! LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES. Aims of the study. The research questions 4.
Significance of the study. TH TH HH HH rên weed 5. Scope of the study. Method of the sludy 3 2.
Structure of the TepOTH. dàn Họ HH nhe re eeccoce3 PART B: DEVELOPMENT.ôôÔỐỒô- CHAPTER ONE: IITERATURE REVITEẲẬW. What is collaborative writing? 5 1. Why collaborative writing?.
Problematic issues of collaborative writing. cà se ciceeecesB 1. How Lo implement. CW in writing.
TH KH KH HH re grdeeererserrsereeeerere.lT CHAPTER WO: MEPHODOLOGY. cà nhe he He ưước 12 ABSTRACT This study was carried oul, fo investigate the impacts of and students’ allitudes toward collaborative writing (CW) in second language {L2). The study was conducted in two cycles Callowmg the procedures of the action research, Tu the Grst. cycle, an interview with aight students and a teacher of English was administered to gain information about the difficulties the students had encountered with in completing the writing tasks in the textbook.
Then in the second phase, the collaboralive writing approach was experimented to teach writing to forty students in an intact class. During, the writing lesson, a teacher was invited to observe and give comment about appropriateness of CW. After each lesson students’ joumals were collected to examine their reflections on collaborative writing. At the end of the experiment, another interview with the observing teacher was carried out to find out the usefulness and appropriateness of collaborative wriling in teaching wriling skill.
Students’ writings were also analysed to measure the impact of the treatment upon students’ writing The results showed that students did make progress in their writing. The observing teacher and most students were positive about the experience, although some reservations were expressed about collaborative writing, which gives rationale for the design of the next cycle of the ation rescarch iii 2.1, Rationale of the using action research. Research setting, - 12 BBD, OVEIVICW. cọ dc He see ¬ ceeee ee LZ 2.
Writing tasks in the textbook Tieng Anh 1].3 Selection of participants 15 3. The Research Design.4, The teaching cycle used in this study. Tramimg thơ lcarrters. Methods of data collection 7 2.
Interviews with students and a teacher. Collection of students’ writings. Posl-Iroatiert trierview wIh the observmg Ieacher 19 2. Summary - - - 20 CHAPTER THREE:FINDINGS AND DICUSSION.
The results of phasc 1. Results of phase IL 23 3.Analysis of students' wiitings. cà cề lề co C227 3. Comparison of Writing Fluency.
Comparison of Writing Aceurady. Comparison of writing complexity. Interview with the observing teacher.33 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CW: Collaborative writing C/T: clauses per T-umut. LIVC: error -free clauses EBT: ertor- free T-units W/I: words per T-unit WIC: words per Clause FFT/T: error- free T-umils per T-umil LVC/C: error free clauses per clause iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CW: Collaborative writing C/T: clauses per T-umut.
LIVC: error -free clauses EBT: ertor- free T-units W/I: words per T-unit WIC: words per Clause FFT/T: error- free T-umils per T-umil LVC/C: error free clauses per clause iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CW: Collaborative writing C/T: clauses per T-umut. LIVC: error -free clauses EBT: ertor- free T-units W/I: words per T-unit WIC: words per Clause FFT/T: error- free T-umils per T-umil LVC/C: error free clauses per clause iv PARTC:CONCLUSION. Summary of major findings. Findings from the prior infervioW.2, Fimdings #om the students` jaumals.
Findings from the results of the writing 36 1.4, Findingsfrom the post- treatment interview with the observing teacher 37 2 Tmpleations. Limitations of this action researeh. cọ non assess ee ST 4. Recommendations for further studies 38 5.1, Rationale of the using action research.
Research setting, - 12 BBD, OVEIVICW. cọ dc He see ¬ ceeee ee LZ 2. Writing tasks in the textbook Tieng Anh 1].3 Selection of participants 15 3. The Research Design.4, The teaching cycle used in this study.
Tramimg thơ lcarrters. Methods of data collection 7 2. Interviews with students and a teacher. Collection of students’ writings.
Posl-Iroatiert trierview wIh the observmg Ieacher 19 2. Summary - - - 20 CHAPTER THREE:FINDINGS AND DICUSSION. The results of phasc 1. Results of phase IL 23 3.Analysis of students' wiitings.
cà cề lề co C227 3. Comparison of Writing Fluency. Comparison of Writing Aceurady. Comparison of writing complexity.
Interview with the observing teacher.33 vii ABSTRACT This study was carried oul, fo investigate the impacts of and students’ allitudes toward collaborative writing (CW) in second language {L2). The study was conducted in two cycles Callowmg the procedures of the action research, Tu the Grst. cycle, an interview with aight students and a teacher of English was administered to gain information about the difficulties the students had encountered with in completing the writing tasks in the textbook. Then in the second phase, the collaboralive writing approach was experimented to teach writing to forty students in an intact class.
During, the writing lesson, a teacher was invited to observe and give comment about appropriateness of CW. After each lesson students’ joumals were collected to examine their reflections on collaborative writing. At the end of the experiment, another interview with the observing teacher was carried out to find out the usefulness and appropriateness of collaborative wriling in teaching wriling skill. Students’ writings were also analysed to measure the impact of the treatment upon students’ writing The results showed that students did make progress in their writing.
The observing teacher and most students were positive about the experience, although some reservations were expressed about collaborative writing, which gives rationale for the design of the next cycle of the ation rescarch iii 2.1, Rationale of the using action research.
